Back
2006 Supreme(Bom) 2097
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Naresh H. Patil and R. M. Borde, JJ.)
BAJAJ AUTO LTD.-Petitioner.
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and others- Respondents.
W. P. No. 4703 of 2006
Decided on 22-12-2006. (Aurangabad)
Advocate Appeared
For petitioner: J. P. Cama, Senior Advocate with R. V. Ghuge
For respondent Nos. 1 and 2: K. B. Choudhari, Additional Govt. Pleader
For respondent No. -3 : T K. Prabhakaran with S. B. Rakebhosale
The appropriate Government has the discretion to refer an industrial dispute to the Industrial Court after reaching satisfaction based on the material placed before it.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 10
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Bajaj Auto Limited, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to strike down the impugned order of reference dated 21st March, 2006 made by the Deputy Commissioner Labour Aurangabad Division Aurangabad under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appropriate Government had exercised its discretion based on the material placed before it and after reaching satisfaction, it decided to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court. The court concluded that no interference was called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the impugned order.
Issues: The issues included the delay in raising the demand, the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, and the lack of material pleadings in the demand raised by the Union and the workers.
Ratio Decidendi: The appropriate Government had the discretion to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court after reaching satisfaction based on the material placed before it. The court also found that the Industrial Court had wide powers to mold the relief in an appropriate manner while considering the case on merits.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs. The effect and operation of the judgment were suspended for a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment.
NARESH H. PATIL, J. :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service.
2. The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for striking down the impugned order of reference dated 21st March, 2006 made by the Deputy Commissioner Labour Aurangabad Division Aurangabad under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
3. The petitioner-Bajaj Auto Limited is a manufacturer of two wheeler and three wheeler automobile vehicles. The manufacturing activity is carried out at its plant at Waluj, Aurangabad. The petitioner contends that the members of respondent No.3 were given temporary, fixed term employment by the petitioner for the first time 18 years ago from the date when the third respondent Bhartiya Kamgar Kranti Sangathana put up its demand notice on 27-1-2004. The appointments of the workers were made by the petitioner to meet the increase in demand arising out of market exigencies. This appointment was initially for a period of 7 months. The appointments were given to the persons on temporary basis on their applications who had accepted such temporary engagement in writing. At the end of each of these fixed terms periods the workers' employment came to an automatic end, according to the petitioner. At no point of time the members worked for 240 days in any span of 12 consecutive calendar months. After the last employment of the members of the third respondent, all such temporaries kept silent for several years without raising any industrial dispute. None of them approached the Court of law in spite of they coming to know that litigation of the first batch of 1200 temporaries had started in the year 1997. The said litigation was much publicised one. It is stated that the said litigation ended in the judgment - and order dated 17-12-2003 delivered by the Apex Court. Thereafter, the members of the third respondent formed a Union and raised their demand on 27-1-2004 only in order to take undue advantage of the Supreme Court judgment dated 17-12-2003 wherein compensation was granted to 185 workers. It is stated that after their last engagement which was about 12 to 18. year ago none of these temporaries ever worked with the petitioner.
4. The petitioner replied to the demand letter of respondent No.3 by letter dated 23rd February, 2004 rejecting the demand and pointing out that the members of the respondent No.3 were appointed for a temporary period which was already over.
5. The matter thereafter went to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Aurangabad and conciliation proceedings commenced. The second respondent made an order of reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Aurangabad on 27-4-2005.
6. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4520 of 2005 before a Division Bench of this Court challenging the aforesaid order of reference. By order dated 11-7-2005 this Court quashed and set aside the order of reference and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh. It was observed that both the parties are at liberty to submit their written submissions before the authority. It was made clear that this Court did not express any opinion on any of the issues sought to be raised in the matter and all the issues were kept open.
7. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the said order the petitioner submitted his written notes of arguments and relied on several case laws and respondent No.3 also submitted its written notes of arguments. Respondent No.
2 passed order of reference on 22-8-2005. The said order of reference was again challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7269 of 2005. By order dated 23rd February, 2006 a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Naresh H. Patil, J.) was a party, quashed and set aside the order of reference and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to consider the material placed before him by the contesting parties, afresh. It was observed tha
